> dreamchaser Wrote:
> > 10500 BC was the last time, when is the next?
> The correlation is not exact at all. When Bauval
> and Gilbert published their book, they portrayed
> the alignment with the stars of Orion's Belt as
> large blobs against the three large square bases
> of the pyramids. They had to do this to make it
> seem like the pyramids matched the stars exactly,
> but the association is only vague.
You've raised some interesting points. I wouldn't say this is one of them.
The overlay of the pyramids relative to Orion is sufficiently close in terms of the offset. The juxtaposing of the pyramids relative to the stars is also reasonable, as one of the OCT's selling features involves relative size to apparent magnitude.
Now, if you could show that the pyramid overlays in that pic are not close to what Giza actually houses, in terms of relative size and distance, I would say this is a decent point. I've never heard such an explanation. Without it, the point sounds weak and cynical.
> To support his theory, Bauval has invoked Badawy
> and Trimble's theory of the stellar alignment of
> the KCS and KCN shafts. They said the KCS shaft
> lines up roughly with Orion's Belt, but Bauval,
> inspired by the brilliance of his own OCT, has
> suggested that the KCS shaft aligns specifically
> with Al Nitak (the lower culminating star), since
> this is the star that corresponds to Khufu's
> Pyramid in the Giza alignment.
> Bauval has gone further. He has said that the
> KCS-Al Nitak alignment can be used to date this
> pyramid, to 2450 BCE. This flies in the face of
> orthodox chronology, and of course the conspiracy
> theorists love this.
> Bauval has also suggested a stellar alignment for
> the two lower (QC) shafts, and orthodoxy for the
> most part accepts the combined
> Badawy-Trimble-Bauval stellar alignment theory of
> the shafts in a general sense, while rejecting
> Bauval's matching the KCS shaft specifically with
> Al Nitak. Indeed, Krupp for example says that the
> KCS shaft points at the middle star Al Nilam
> almost precisely for the year 2550 BCE, an
> accepted date for the building of this pyramid.
> In more recent times, Magli has stepped into the
> debate, and pointed out that the final portion of
> the KCN shaft, set at a slightly lower angle than
> the overall slope of the shaft of 7:11 (according
> to Gantenbrink) also points to Thuban rather
> precisely in 2550 BCE, thus "locking in" KCS's
> orientation to Al Nilam. This orientation
> conflicts with Bauval's hypothesis of KCS's
> orientation to Al Nitak, and this further
> undermines the OCT.
The bent shafts have always been a problem that I had been willing to overlook, in part because of the alleged steller symbiosis between 10.5k and 2.45k bc.
I had presumed that 2450bc was within reasonable range to the building of the pyramid. Is that too much of an error if the GP was constructed in 2550bc? At a glance that seems like a one degree error (72 years). Seems like a lot, but aren't we working within ranges when it comes to GP and the Giza's history? Isn't it misleading, therefore, for Krupp and others to suggest "an" accepted date? How much variance does the orthodoxy allow?